Reply to Paul Arveson

John W. Burgeson (
16 Aug 96 11:03:42 EDT

Paul writes, in part: " Let's consider the question of "monogamous
relationships", i.e. "gay
marriage" from 3 viewpoints: Biblical, physical, and cultural.
From the Biblical viewpoint, I think William Frix gave a pretty clear
exposition of the relevant verses yesterday. He concluded:
'The question is not whether the Bible speaks about homosexual acts. The
question is whether or not a person believes the Bible is the Word
of God.'
Hence evasion or escape or rationalization or redefinition of the moral
requirement is not consistent; the Bible says what it says. "

That is much too simple a statement, Paul. Read Helmaniak & Schmidt to see just
how complex the issue is. It is not "evasion" nor "escape" from a moral
requirement at all; if it were, if there were an unambiguous proscription of
homosexual acts in Scripture, the issue would not have been raised. But there is
not. Yes, I know all the relevant Scriptures -- so do Helmaniak & Schmidt.

Now if someone reads both these tomes, and decides, having read them (or their
equivalent) that he clearly comes down on one side or the other (I know godly
Christians on both sides), then that's fine. But it takes a little time and
work to do so.

Of course, if one's mind is made up that the Bible proscribes gay acts, reading
Schmidt is of little use for he will simply confirm your position. If one's mind
inclines the other way, reading Helmaniak is also futile, for he will simply
confirm your position.

Life is too short for me to spend my time reading only those authors I agree